An authority must rely on scientific data when making decisions on land applications, especially after prior judicial directives.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

i “To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P8 order and quash the original of the same ii. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P7 report and quash the original of the same iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent/authority concerned to issue an order excluding the petitioner’s property from the data bank within a time frame fixed by the Hon’ble Court iv. Dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular documents v. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. “ [sic]

2. The petitioner filed a Form-5 application in accordance to Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules . The same was rejected as per Ext.P4. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court by filing W.P.(C.) No. 25550/2023. This Court set aside Ext.P4 order and directed to reconsider Form-5 application as per Ext.P5 judgment. Thereafter, Ext.P8 order is passed. Aggrieved by Ext.P8, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader.

4. This Court perused Ext.P8. In Ext.P8, paragraph Nos. 1 and 2 deals about the facts of the case. The only discussion about the merit of the case is in paragraph No.3. This Court in Ext.P5 judgment observed like this : 9. “The petitioner owns 23.67 Ares of property comprised in Survey No.489/2-3 of Cheruthuruthi Village, Thalapilly Taluk of Thrissur District. The petitioner’s land was included in the Data Bank. The petitioner wanted to use the land for other purposes. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application in Form-5.

10. I have perused Ext.P4 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is evident from Ext.P4 that the Revenue Divisional Officer has entirely relied on the report dated 02.07.2021 of the Agricultural Officer in order to reject the application of the petitioner. The Agricultural Officer’s report is in turn based on a decision of the Local Level Monitoring Committee.

11. Ext.P4 would indicate that the LLMC has noted that a foundation for construction of a residential building exists in the petitioner’s property and the land around the foundation is in the nature of Paddy land. It is on that score that the LLMC has recommended not to remove the land from Data Bank.

12. The petitioner would contend that the Data Bank which is prepared in the year 2012 would indicate that a foundation for the building was constructed and the land is described as ‘Nilam Nikathu Kettidam’. The petitioner would further submit that all the land around the property of the petitioner are well developed with construction of a large number of residential buildings. Paddy cultivation is not possible in the land of the petitioner.

13. The facts being so, I am of the view that the Revenue Divisional Officer ought not have rejected the petitioner’s application solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer, which in turn was based on the recommendation given by the LLMC. If the Revenue Divisional Officer had any doubt regarding the nature of the land as existed in the year 2008, it would have been only just and proper that Scientific Data is obtained before coming to any conclusion adverse to the petitioner.

In the circumstances, Ext.P4 is set aside. The writ petition is disposed of directing that if the petitioner submits an application to the Agricultural Officer concerned seeking to obtain KSREC Report paying the prescribed fee within a period of two weeks, the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer shal